quote:Originally posted by steven: I like the part about "single mothers and their sociopathic children". I still don't quite get why he thinks that fathers are the only adult males capable of providing direction/discipline for kids. The Cherokee left the disciplining of children to the mother's brother. I don't see why uncles/neighbors/teachers/etc. can't help with raising children. It does take a village, usually, unless the parents are superhuman. IMHO.
Oh well.
Single-mothers cannot control young men. This is why the majority of criminals come from house-holds headed by a single mother.
Where in my post did I say I think single motherhood is an ideal circumstance? I certainly didn't mean to imply it. I certainly don't believe it. However, I find hilarious the idea that somehow a child's father is somehow automatically better equipped to provide discipline/direction/guidance than any other adult male in a child's life. Fathers are not. They might be more likely to care/try, but that's not an absolute. Certainly I appreciate the help of other capable/willing adult males in my daughter's life, whether teachers, relatives, neighbors, parents of her friends, or whatever. It takes a village. Again, IMHO.
I would appreciate responses from people OTHER than Clive, if I'm going to get responses at all. Please?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who was raised more by his brother-in-law than by his frequently traveling father, I can say an adult male presence is vital, but it doesn't have to be a father.
Actually, quite a few modern day fathers, even if they stay with their family, are so buried in work and their own concerns they barely seem to notice their children. This is because, IMO, a lot of men either don't want children, or don't understand them/care enough about them once they have them to play an active role in their lives. This is why mentor programs are so important.
I think the point has been a bit derailed, though. It's not "women are weak and incapable of raising strong manly men" (as Clive suggests) but "it takes at least two people to raise a child, preferably of both sexes." Some single mothers and fathers pull it off, others don't, but the ones I've seen do it successfully are the ones who rely of their family/neighbors/church to help them.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ANDD GOD DAMNIT CLIVE KEEP YOU FILTHY SEXIST BULLCRAP IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED FOR DISCUSSING THAT BULLCRAP!
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Still waiting for you to refute me.
You've been refuted practically non-stop from the point you said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" and made the claim that the presence of women at Abu Ghraib was what caused human rights abuses to take place there despite having absolutely no evidence of this fact and being unable to present a factually sound reason why this is so.
You've been refuted dozens of times already, you just are in the enviably dissonant position of assuming that you can't be refuted from positions that you are presenting on the scientific weight of "well, this is how I see it."
I mean, seriously. The best (by which I mean worst) part is your consistency in trends and attitude which make you so unbelievable. Women caused Abu Ghraib. Women are responsible for the financial meltdown. Women are responsible for our criminal population. And for whatever reason you feel it is important to keep dropping these bombs in this forum in a reliable fashion. Please keep the baldly misogynistic hits coming.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that women were used in combat in SOME instances does not mean that they were IDEAL. The Russians used women to defend against the German invasion...yet they didn't use women in their Afghanistan campaign. Hmm...what made them change their mind? Yes, you list my positions...but am I wrong?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
For starters, yes you are. I not only listed your positions, I pointed out again that you've been refuted dozens of times already.
Also you're now waffling and contorting from having previously said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" to "well yeah so they were used in combat sometimes but that doesn't mean they were ideal"
You're basically demonstrating a pretty classic case of "Clive Candy Being Wrong, Doesn't Understand Why: The Movie"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, the fact that women were used in combat doesn't mean they were used successfully. We know this because historical armies did not proceed to do the rational thing (if the female soldiers were so awesome) and keep using them as soldiers.
And you guys kept linking to that "women in the military" wiki article when a fair amount of it actually backs me up:
quote:Once again, the fact that women were used in combat doesn't mean they were used successfully. We know this because historical armies did not proceed to do the rational thing (if the female soldiers were so awesome) and keep using them as soldiers.
More bad logic. Many societies pressed cultural minorities into service during times of need and then, despite their capacity to serve perfectly well, opted out of retaining them as soldiers. It can be due to prejudice and/or differing levels of necessity alongside social mores.
Besides, you're wrong again. Some armies pressed women into service and (OH NO!) use women in combat today. Evidently they proceeded in a way which unintentionally violates your concept. Damn.
Clive Candy Being Wrong, Doesn't Understand Why: The Movie: The Game
quote:agahaghagahga
Those links don't back you up, because the concerns they address are fundamentally different from the arguments you made. Noting that arguments exist do not help your case when they are not the case you're making, and the case you're making is bankrupt.
As for you being a bad person? Well, your words, not mine. I just think you're a misogynistic man with utterly bizarre neuroses about women, and fundamentally incapable of being a rational person while arguing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made those arguments, and everyone chose to them ignore them and respond with "OH NO THERE WERE IN FACT FEMALE SOLDIERS" -- the same thing you're doing. I guess it makes sense to ignore what you can't refute.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
It is certainly true that if you make 20 statements, and ten of them can be easily proven false, people will first point out that you've made ten false statements and wait for you to concede that, yes, indeed those statements were false. At that point, they might begin to address the remaining ten.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
Pretending that there is discussion going on in this thread...
I recently read about a study (here) trying to understand (something along the lines of) the quoted observation by looking at the age at which girls first had sex. They compared sets of cousins where one cousin would be raised by a single mother and the other by both parents. If the father's absence was a cause for early sexual maturity they expected to see a difference in the age of first experience. They didn't, suggesting that genetics plays a significant role.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the armies that have women in their armies aren't in war. The United States has a significant female service members, and its refusing to use them in the front line. That's going to be the same case for every army. Good old liberal Israel actually tried this and changed its mind immediately. But let's totally ignore this.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I was trivially wrong. It's like my saying "Human beings have ten fingers" and you people responding with "BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WITH NINE FINGERS?" Yea okay, point for you.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... ANDD GOD DAMNIT CLIVE KEEP YOU FILTHY SEXIST BULLCRAP IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED FOR DISCUSSING THAT BULLCRAP!
Out of idle curiosity, is this in reference to anything?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
Pretending that there is discussion going on in this thread...
I recently read about a study (here) trying to understand (something along the lines of) the quoted observation by looking at the age at which girls first had sex. They compared sets of cousins where one cousin would be raised by a single mother and the other by both parents. If the father's absence was a cause for early sexual maturity they expected to see a difference in the age of first experience. They didn't, suggesting that genetics plays a significant role.
Interesting.
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The fact that women were used in combat in SOME instances does not mean that they were IDEAL. The Russians used women to defend against the German invasion...yet they didn't use women in their Afghanistan campaign. Hmm...what made them change their mind? Yes, you list my positions...but am I wrong?
For one thing the Soviet Army uses conscription it would arguably make sense to not deploy significant quantities of female soldiers to Afghanistan if they were conscripts HOWEVER a brief look through this book http://www.scribd.com/doc/19531155/The-SovietAfghan-War which is entirely availiable online appears to imply that active duty Soviet FEMALE soldiers WERE IN FACT DEPLOYED TO AFGHANISTAN which means you did absolutely ZERO research when you made your claim meaning furthermore everything you say is LIKELY to be scientifically unsubstantiated.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... ANDD GOD DAMNIT CLIVE KEEP YOU FILTHY SEXIST BULLCRAP IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED FOR DISCUSSING THAT BULLCRAP!
Out of idle curiosity, is this in reference to anything?
That does not mean that the father hasn't abandoned his family first. It just means he hasn't necessarily bothered to fill out paperwork -- which makes sense, because a father who abandons his family is probably going to find divorce fairly expensive, whereas simply wandering off is absolutely free.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe women are initiating 75% of divorces since, as you admit, divorce is so costly for men. It's the man who is far more likely to lose the house and children while being obligated to turn over a substantial portion of his income for as much as 25 years. But sure, the reality is that men are simply walking away and not bothering to fill out the paper work (as if they can't easily be found by Child Support services). That's the real explanation of that statistic.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The fact that women were used in combat in SOME instances does not mean that they were IDEAL. The Russians used women to defend against the German invasion...yet they didn't use women in their Afghanistan campaign. Hmm...what made them change their mind? Yes, you list my positions...but am I wrong?
For one thing the Soviet Army uses conscription it would arguably make sense to not deploy significant quantities of female soldiers to Afghanistan if they were conscripts HOWEVER a brief look through this book http://www.scribd.com/doc/19531155/The-SovietAfghan-War which is entirely availiable online appears to imply that active duty Soviet FEMALE soldiers WERE IN FACT DEPLOYED TO AFGHANISTAN which means you did absolutely ZERO research when you made your claim meaning furthermore everything you say is LIKELY to be scientifically unsubstantiated.
But did they serve on the front lines? Did they undertake missions as dangerous as those that male soldiers did? I didn't claim that there were no Soviet female soldier presence in Afghanistan, I'm saying they weren't the ones exchanging fire with the Mujahideen.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point, of course, is that observing that women initiate 75% of divorces does not function as proof that somehow only 25% of men are to blame for divorces.
--------
quote:I didn't claim that there were no Soviet female soldier presence in Afghanistan, I'm saying they weren't the ones exchanging fire with the Mujahideen.
I'm sure, when Afghani terrorists/freedom fighters attacked Soviet convoys, the female drivers of those convoys thought something like, "Oh, no! If only I were a man, so I could shoot back without suffering the horrible penalties of my sex!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My point, of course, is that observing that women initiate 75% of divorces does not function as proof that somehow only 25% of men are to blame for divorces.
And the sole reason I pointed out that statistic was because The Economist casually referred to men leaving their families. How can we tell a man leaving his family from a man getting left...statistically? We can't. The "75%" statistic is at least startling enough to give people who would casually refer to "men leaving their families" some pause.
quote:I'm sure, when Afghani terrorists/freedom fighters attacked Soviet convoys, the female drivers of those convoys thought something like, "Oh, no! If only I were a man, so I could shoot back without suffering the horrible penalties of my sex!
How do you know that soviet convoys were being driven by women in any sort of significant numbers?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Even in those situations it isn't clear that the man chooses to leave his children -- or even the mother. It could just as likely be that these men are being cast out as it could be that they're choosing to abandon those children/baby-mama.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Even in those situations it isn't clear that the man chooses to leave his children -- or even the mother. It could just as likely be that these men are being cast out as it could be that they're choosing to abandon those children/baby-mama.
OK, so if your goal is to point out that more data is required before accepting their alternate hypothesis as fact, then you have no argument from me(nor, I would guess, the researchers). Btw my guess would be that in the majority of the cases, the men do not wish to be a father figure. But I have not seen data one way or the other.
I wonder if the Economist has accurately reflected what the researchers actually said. In particular:
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
is a statement about genes common in the father and offspring. On the other hand the experiment described is reliant on genetic similarity of the mothers. Or am I missing something?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's an interesting experiment but they need to control for more things. How often did the cousins see each other, for instance? Did they live in the same neighborhood? If the latter, then perhaps one of them getting a boyfriend influences the other to get a boyfriend, and so on...
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Single-mothers cannot control young men. This is why the majority of criminals come from house-holds headed by a single mother.
Gosh darn it. That makes a large chunk of the men I know criminals! Who'd have thunk?
Just because the majority of criminals come from house holds headed by a single woman does not mean the majority of men raised by single women become criminals. Hello.
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
You know? He's the one who got me to read Octavia Butler by quoting tons of Wild Seed in his book on how to write science fiction. He used her as an example of good writing. And he was totally right on that point. Maybe I should be reading his reviews of books too.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My point, of course, is that observing that women initiate 75% of divorces does not function as proof that somehow only 25% of men are to blame for divorces.
And the sole reason I pointed out that statistic was because The Economist casually referred to men leaving their families. How can we tell a man leaving his family from a man getting left...statistically? We can't. The "75%" statistic is at least startling enough to give people who would casually refer to "men leaving their families" some pause.
quote:I'm sure, when Afghani terrorists/freedom fighters attacked Soviet convoys, the female drivers of those convoys thought something like, "Oh, no! If only I were a man, so I could shoot back without suffering the horrible penalties of my sex!
How do you know that soviet convoys were being driven by women in any sort of significant numbers?
Because the book and Soviet archives say so, and until you display the academic integrity to go out and find sources to contradict this it is all we need to refute you.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Huh? Explain.
Sometimes you mimic Stewie Griffon or Zero Punctuation, or other. I was just curious if this was another reference to something.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time hearing you... the herd of trolls is making too much noise.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive I am confused on your opinion of women.
Your view of them as delicate things that need protecting is seen in your comments about our reaction to their mistreatment in war, and how no lone mother can handle a young man.
Then there is your view that women are behind most domestic splits. You argue that women, not men, are the ones that force men to leave them. This makes women very powerful and very ugly in deed.
The contradiction in you logic is obvious. If no woman can control a young male, how do women manage to force their husbands and sexual partners out of their lives after the children are born?
I do not have statistics on divorce or single mothers. I do personally know 5 cases where it was the cheating male, the abusive male, or the scared of commitment OMG I don't want to be a father male who leaves. Can we blame the women? Why aren't we blaming the men? Why can't we blame the dead-beat dad who sleeps with his secretary? He argues that the divorce cost him his house and his money, and he shouldn't have to pay for that just because he slept around.
Or the guy who beats his wife on occasion, but surely not enough for her to run off to a shelter and get a court injunction. The bruises healed, eventually. She's just a ho who wants to raise crimminal children.
Is it that you believe that women are a precious but flawed resource that men are too perfect to damage. Hence the only reason for single motherhood is that the flawed woman forces the man to give up his property rights on her?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found OSC's positive recommendations can be very good but, by and large, his negative ones are largely just a vehicle for him to go into an anti-elitist/liberal/academic/artsy rant. I sort of wish there was some indicator of when he's actually reviewing something as opposed to going off on something that offends him in the guise of a review.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Huh? Explain.
Sometimes you mimic Stewie Griffon or Zero Punctuation, or other. I was just curious if this was another reference to something.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, it is far more likely if I say something that gives offense is a misunderstanding, however the above is me clearly telling Clive to shut the hell up.
Are you trying to imply or say something? If you have something to say, don't disguise it and dance around the issue come right out and SAY IT right now it seems what your saying seems laden with subtext. Clarify, are you trying to imply something or have some criticism or did you actually want to know if I was quoting something and directing it at Clive?
IP: Logged |
quote:Also you're now waffling and contorting from having previously said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" to "well yeah so they were used in combat sometimes but that doesn't mean they were ideal"
Actually his original statement was "That's why no society in history ever used women in combat." It appears in the first post in his thread.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:Also you're now waffling and contorting from having previously said "No human society has ever used women successfully in combat" to "well yeah so they were used in combat sometimes but that doesn't mean they were ideal"
Actually his original statement was "That's why no society in history ever used women in combat." It appears in the first post in his thread.
So, an even worse and even more catastrophically incorrect assertion?
IP: Logged |
posted
I have a lot of issues with OSC's articles, but the one that bugs me recently is this:
Lately, it seems like every single time he mentions global warming he mentions something about how in Roman times it was warm enough for the Romans to grow grapes and make wine in England. Then he proceeds to explain that today it is still not possible to grow wine grapes in England, and how this shows that global warming is not that serious.
Well, I know nothing about global warming. However, I think that the English Wine Producers Association would disagree with his assessment.
These days, the country is crawling with vineyards.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BryanP: I'll never stop reading his reviews of books, I've been turned on to too many good ones to stop. I've probably bought a dozen or so books either for myself or my dad based on OSC's recommendations, most recently Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn books, which were great and made me excited that he was finishing The Wheel of Time. But I've started to avoid Card's political stuff cause at this point he seems stuck in whatever mode people pay him to write those articles in, I guess inflammatory mode.
You know? He's the one who got me to read Octavia Butler by quoting tons of Wild Seed in his book on how to write science fiction. He used her as an example of good writing. And he was totally right on that point. Maybe I should be reading his reviews of books too.
Me, too! Wild Seed is one of my favorites, and I got it out of his "How to Write..." book.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
That aside, how did a I don't want to read OSC articles turn into all of this while I was at work?!
Also I love Octavia Butler. Perhaps way more than OSC as I loved the way she wrote about race and gender Plus I want to be an Ooloi-Human construct.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Specifically, the same genes that might make a dad more likely to leave his family could be behind early sexual development as well.
Really? It couldn't be that the father was driven out, could it? Women initiate 75% of divorces so it's more likely that fathers aren't abandoning their children but rather women are leaving the father and taking the children.
Without seeing any data, my guess is that # of children born out of wed-lock > # of children in single family homes due to divorce.
Even in those situations it isn't clear that the man chooses to leave his children -- or even the mother. It could just as likely be that these men are being cast out as it could be that they're choosing to abandon those children/baby-mama.
...and even giving you 100 yards of leash, I still lose you right here.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
